Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Swiss Knight

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Userfy. Bishonen|talk 18:58, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Swiss Knight

Vanity page, utter nonsense, no real claim to notability, elaborate hoax, extensive joke, pick your favorite reason. -- malo (talk) 00:43, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Not funny. Ashibaka (tock) 00:46, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, this isn't the place for creating random fiction. - Bobet 00:53, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

*Don't Delete it should be known that all of the events written of did actually happen, with a couple minor adjustments to make them more spectacular. Gentlemen, if you kill this article, 1000 more shall spring up in its place, I beg of you to save the Knight and the justice he stands for.AshJW 00:58, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

• Don't Delete For saving the long hard work and dedication that went into this very true, and very interesting page.Opals25 20:04, 14 November 2005 (UTC) User's only edits are this AFD nom and user page.
• Delete. If not any of the above, certainly an extremely elaborate inside joke. --howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 01:10, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
• Don't Delete This article deserves to be here, not only as an entertaining read but as a lesson to all those who behold this story. It is indeed true, for I have paid witness to its events, and therefore there is no reason for this to be deleted unless you aspire to be a menace to all those who could benefit from this masterful article. What harm has this done to you, I ask? Silver Mobius 01:15, 15 November 2005 (UTC) Silver Mobius (talk · contribs) has two edits, both to this AfD.
• Whoa. Don't delete, userfy. Obviously inappropriate in the article namespace, but have you no humanity? Frutti di Mare 01:19, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Please note: I wish you hadn't just moved the page like that. If anything you have only made it more confusing for admins to settles this afd. -- malo (talk) 01:28, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment. Sorry, I was being bold. I have indeed moved the article to User:AshJW/The Swiss Knight, and ask that an admin will kindly delete the redirect The Swiss Knight, as redirects from article space to userspace are improper. I'm sorry that the AFD template on the article consequently no longer links to this discussion. OTOH, the discussion has become kinda moot, why not just close it? Just my opinion. Frutti di Mare 01:35, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
      • The AfD template now works once again, since I've moved the article back from userspace. Userfication is one possible option open to us for resolving inappropriate material put into the article namespace. It is not an end run where you can just say "oh, maybe I shouldn't have done that but now that I have it's moot so don't worry your pretty little head over it." -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:46, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
        • ...? Oh. No, quite. Nice friendly place you've got here. :-( It won't happen again. Frutti di Mare 18:59, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
• Userify if possible otherwise Delete. I found it funny but utterly pointless. --W.marsh 01:21, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
• Don't DeleteThe legend of the Swiss Knight is not fiction(though embellished for drama) and should have a place here, as it hails some of the older myths present. If indeed wikipedia is a centre of knowledge then it would do well to host such a genre of thought that AshJW has put forth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by M1thrand1r (talk • contribs) 20:24, 14 November 2005 This is M1thrand1r (talk · contribs)'s only edit.
• Delete as not-notable fiction. Put this on a blog, guys, not on Wikipedia. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:32, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Not encyclopedic. Reyk 01:39, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
• Move Wikipedia has an appropriate place for the creation of group fictional projects. I suggested this placement last month on The Swiss Knight's discussion page. See below. WBardwin 01:53, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Better yet -- why not transfer the Swiss Knight and associated pages into Wikipedia:Once upon a time... - a project designed for writing "creative work" or "fiction." That quiet site has never really gotten off the ground, and your fine effort might create a spark there as well. Best Wishes. WBardwin 02:30, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

• Strong delete probably funny, but utterly UE FRS 01:58, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, but the user can keep it in user space, a la the ancient European toilet paper holder hoax. Geogre 02:00, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete If the Swiss Knight we're alive he wouldn't want his image corrupting this bastion of knowledge. Do with this article what you wish. AshJW 02:03, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Too long for BJAODN and unverifiable. Capitalistroadster 02:11, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
• Don't delete Whilst not complete truth, what other entry will occupy where 'The Swiss Knight'? The events are actually truth-based, and i'm sure this page holds a very special place in the writer's heart. 8:03 P.M., 14 November 2005 (UTC) Taylor —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.72.23.190 (talk • contribs) 22:04, 14 November 2005

• Don't delete I think it needs to be moved somewhere where this kid's creative genius could be better used. It's mostly true, but it's not really a reference page.68.145.239.14 02:37, 15 November 2005 (UTC) Dan

• Delete, Wikipedia not a place for original fiction. Andrew Levine 03:58, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, and encourage it to be reposted in some more appropriate place, like on a fiction site. Nothing against the creativity in the heart and soul of the author, but it's not an encyclopedic entry about a factual entity. *Dan T.* 04:13, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I would have suggested userfy if it weren't for the bad faith votes for keep. User:Zoe|^(talk) 04:41, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as patent nonsense. Ifnord 04:49, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete hoax. NSLE _{(讨论+extra)} 09:34, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Total garbage, and I suggest that his user page be a copy of electoral fraud. Descendall 12:13, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
• Strong delete, probably should be speedy for patent nonsense per anyone else who said "delete". By the way, it appears that this AfD has attracted meatpuppets -- which can only mean that this article really shouldn't be here. Wcquidditch | [[User talk:Wcquidditch|Talk]] 12:40, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete This article commits the only unforgiveable comedic sin - it's not funny. (It's also unencyclopaedic drivel.)
• Delete. Just not an encyclopedia entry. To the writer: copy and move elsewhere with my best wishes. Durova 14:21, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, just some private joke only funny to the coworkers who created it, completely unencyclopedic. HGB 19:17, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy delete Worthless to anyone not in on the joke. Jasmol 22:46, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete because it's just poppycock, and I really can't stand people who make a buttload of sockpuppets in a futile effort to get the article non-deleted. Mo0[talk] 02:58, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
• Userfy if appropriate; delete otherwise. Bearcat 05:39, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or Userfy, as per above, and the puppetry is very annoying. If only contributors would devote that kind of obsessive energy to real articles... Sigh. MCB 02:28, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.